R v Karl Steffan Golds

In criminal appeals lodged substantially out of time, the Court of Appeal may consider the merits but may refuse an extension where the delay is inadequately explained and the proposed grounds have no realistic prospect of success. A previous conviction may be admitted where highly relevant to an important issue, including explaining complainants’ fear of disclosure, provided the jury receives careful directions against unfair prejudice. Criticism of trial counsel waives legal professional privilege, allowing the court to assess counsel’s account. In sentencing persistent offending against separate victims, consecutive sentences may reflect the separate offending, while totality is addressed by concurrency or reduction. An offender recalled on breach of a life licence is not entitled to credit for remand in respect of the later offences.

The applicant sought renewed extensions of approximately two years to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and approximately two years and four months to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. He had been convicted at Manchester Crown Court of 22 sexual offences against two children and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment.

The proposed conviction appeal challenged the admission of his earlier murder conviction, the conduct of trial counsel, disclosure, directions and other trial matters. The proposed sentence appeal challenged totality, consecutive sentences for offending against the second child and the failure to take account of pre-trial remand. The central issues were whether the extensions should be granted and whether either proposed appeal was arguable.

The applications for extensions of time were refused. The court nevertheless considered the proposed appeals on their merits and concluded that leave would not have been granted in either case.

1. The delays were substantial and inadequately explained. Granting extensions would serve no useful purpose because the proposed grounds were wholly without merit.
2. The applicant’s earlier murder conviction was plainly admissible. It was highly relevant to the complainants’ explanation for not reporting the sexual abuse and to their fear of what the applicant might do. The trial judge gave careful directions limiting the use of the conviction and warning the jury against unfair prejudice.
3. By criticising trial counsel, the applicant waived legal professional privilege. The court was therefore entitled to consider counsel’s account and the prosecution’s response. Those materials showed that the applicant had been properly represented, disclosure had been made and discussed, relevant inconsistencies had been raised, and decisions concerning evidence had been properly taken.
4. The sentence was not arguably unsafe or manifestly excessive. Given the persistent offending and its impact on two children, consecutive sentences for offending against the second child were justified. The judge had addressed totality by reducing the sentences imposed for that offending, and the overall sentence was within the sentencing guidelines.
5. Because the offences were committed while the applicant was on life licence and he was recalled for breaching it from the outset, he was not entitled to have the time spent on remand before trial taken into account.

The applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence would have been refused in any event.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) A single judge refused the applications for leave. On renewal, the court refused extensions of time and held that neither proposed appeal was arguable: [2024] EWCA Crim 974.
2. Manchester Crown Court The applicant was convicted of 22 sexual offences against two children and sentenced to a total of 25 years’ imprisonment.